The Evidence War

[chrispalasz]

Please take the time to read this entire post.

This thread is created for posts that:

1. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity holds the Truth about God and humanity.

2. Show evidence supporting the view that Christianity does not hold the truth about God and humanity.

Evidence posted must be according to one of the two definitions, or it will not be deemed sufficient as evidence. All debate arising from posted evidence should be addressed using counter-evidence [counter-evidence defined as evidence that goes against or attempts to falsify or discredit evidence already posted].

Evidence, on this thread, is defined as follows:

1. Of or having to do with a material object that demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue;

2. A matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, enabling one to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute.

[Lotan]

I think it's fine for these sects to evolve on their own, but they do not represent a consensus of Christian thought so we can't really say Christianity has evolved.

To use the evolution analogy, guppies don't represent the consensus of fish, but they're still fish.

[samuelbb7]

I keep falling behind in these posts.

An early reference to christianity is that of a graphetti. It has a picture of a donkey headed man placed on a cross. With the latin phrase of a person's name worships his god. this was the way in which Christianity was looked at. Many of the early christians believed enough to die for their faith.

Secondly Christianity is based on early judaism. All the early followers of JESUS were jews who lived in Jerusalem. It was from Jerusalem that Christianity spread. It spread first to areas in places that Jesus visited. So for Christianity to grow the people would have known about if they were being told lies since many had meet JESUS or talked to him.

Whether people of other chruches are saved seems to have beocme part of this discussion. If Chirsitianity is wrong then it does not matter anyway.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

I think I understand now.

I think Christianity operates differently than science in that it cannot evolve its paradigm where science can and should.

Whenever Christianity has moved away from its center, its core principles found in the gospels, it has become corrupted.

Reform movements spring up to bring it back to its roots and those have proved to be very successful.

There's also nothing to add to Christianity. You either accept it or reject it.

Nothing can be away from logical rules and claim to be rational and logical.either you are logical or you are not.

[richic]

Nothing can be away from logical rules and claim to be rational and logical.either you are logical or you are not

That's fair, but how does this apply in this context? It seems like we have a large number of scholars with diverse worldviews, sceptics and believers, studying the Christian period who can provide a consensus version of events.

I think it would be logical and reasonable to accept their consensus understanding that there may be gaps of knowlege where there's a lack of physical evidence to reach consensus. We must also understand that any consensus will be qualified because we're studying the past.

If the consensus evidence point to Christ's existence and that people in his time thought he performed unusal acts, why is it intellectually dishonest for Christians to believe that Christ existed and he performed miracles?

Now I agree I do not know that he did these things but I believe he did. You don't know that he did these things and you don't believe he did the things.

I think it's very reasonable for us to reach dissimilar conclusions based on the same evidence.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

That's fair, but how does this apply in this context? It seems like we have a large number of scholars with diverse worldviews, sceptics and believers, studying the Christian period who can provide a consensus version of events.

I think it would be logical and reasonable to accept their consensus understanding that there may be gaps of knowlege where there's a lack of physical evidence to reach consensus. We must also understand that any consensus will be qualified because we're studying the past.

If the consensus evidence point to Christ's existence and that people in his time thought he performed unusal acts, why is it intellectually dishonest for Christians to believe that Christ existed and he performed miracles?

Now I agree I do not know that he did these things but I believe he did. You don't know that he did these things and you don't believe he did the things.

I think it's very reasonable for us to reach dissimilar conclusions based on the same evidence.

It isnt reasonable to reach different conclusions with same evidence.Its unreasonable.if what u say is correct then nobody can take any decision in life.If you open your eyes and see things logically it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion.

The problem with believers is that they believe every single comma and full stop in the holy book to be true and defend every single drop of ink in the book.

proving christ's existence will mean nothing to atheists and nonchristians.Proving his miracles would be better,but it isnt possible.In every year thousands of mircales are reported by very honest people all over the world like UFO's,cured diseases etc.

I will give u one single example.In India mother teresa did some good job.Now after her death vatican wants to make her as a saint.So theys earch for "miracles".They found two miracles also.One woman claims that she was cured when teresa touched her.But the doctors who treated her say that they did an operation and cured her.But vatican has accepted this "miracle" and teresa is one her way to sainthood.These are the types of miracles mentioned in every religion.when even in 21st century people find such "miracles" imagine what they could have found before 2000 years when people were lot more gullible.

If religion helps you to regulate your personal life take those aspects and rever them.For example bible says not to do homosexuality and incest.It says to show your another cheek when somebody slaps you.These are good things.I give credit to them.

But if you honestly believe in all miracles and magics mentioned in book and say all those happened really,when you perfectly knew they couldnt have, like man created 5000 years before christ and creation in 6 days, you are closing your eyes and refusing to see things logically.

proving those miracles would be as impossible as finding a unicorn.And if god is really that powerul he will show miracles to the world.humans need not go in search of it.

I accept christianity's services to humanity.Its a good institution.But its an institution of past like oxford university and roman empire.It has its pros and cons.But it isnt magical as you claim and isnt the solution to problem of every man at every corner of world.Its great philosophy i agree.But its one of the greatest philosphies and not the only greatest philosophy.Bible can be a good guide to your morals-but not every line in bible.There are many other books which can do the same job.

[richic]

It isnt reasonable to reach different conclusions with same evidence.Its unreasonable.if what u say is correct then nobody can take any decision in life.If you open your eyes and see things logically it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion.

But if the grand sum of evidence we have is not conclusive then we have no choice but to draw whatever conclusion we believe which may be framed by other beliefs and experiences.

I may believe that the world is more likely created than not so that reinforces my belief that the creator could introduce himself into the world through Jesus. You may believe that we have evolved from a single natural building block and thus don't buy into an intelligent creator. In that instance there's no divinity, so Jesus was either myth or possible a very gifted man.

The problem with believers is that they believe every single comma and full stop in the holy book to be true and defend every single drop of ink in the book.

I think the same could be said about many adherents to evolutionary theory. I think the passion runs deep on both sides.

proving christ's existence will mean nothing to atheists and nonchristians.Proving his miracles would be better,but it isnt possible.In every year thousands of mircales are reported by very honest people all over the world like UFO's,cured diseases etc.

I think you are right but don't say its not possible. I think you are being too certain. Even Christ said to the sceptics,

"If I do not do the works of my Father, do not believe ME; If I do , though you do not believe ME, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in ME, and I in the Father."

But if you honestly believe in all miracles and magics mentioned in book and say all those happened really,when you perfectly knew they couldnt have, like man created 5000 years before christ and creation in 6 days, you are closing your eyes and refusing to see things logically.

But I do believe in the miracles because of the eyewitnesses to them. I have not yet see the CNN special or book that conclusively proves Jesus was a fraud.
On Creation, I believe that the trend in science is moving towards a lack of consensus on how we got here.

I accept christianity's services to humanity.Its a good institution.But its an institution of past like oxford university and roman empire.It has its pros and cons.But it isnt magical as you claim and isnt the solution to problem of every man at every corner of world.Its great philosophy i agree.But its one of the greatest philosphies and not the only greatest philosophy.Bible can be a good guide to your morals-but not every line in bible.There are many other books which can do the same job.

I agree. Christianity is not for everyone. It look me 20 years from the time I went from being an agnostic to believing in God, to become a Christian. It's a very difficult belief system to come to grips with.

[worship-your-mother-she-i]

But if the grand sum of evidence we have is not conclusive then we have no choice but to draw whatever conclusion we believe which may be framed by other beliefs and experiences.

I may believe that the world is more likely created than not so that reinforces my belief that the creator could introduce himself into the world through Jesus. You may believe that we have evolved from a single natural building block and thus don't buy into an intelligent creator. In that instance there's no divinity, so Jesus was either myth or possible a very gifted man.


I think the same could be said about many adherents to evolutionary theory. I think the passion runs deep on both sides.


I think you are right but don't say its not possible. I think you are being too certain. Even Christ said to the sceptics,

"But I do believe in the miracles because of the eyewitnesses to them. I have not yet see the CNN special or book that conclusively proves Jesus was a fraud.
On Creation, I believe that the trend in science is moving towards a lack of consensus on how we got here.

the evidence in world in conclusive.It was conclusive from long back.There is no proof for creation.But the problem is

1.How do you prove that a unicorn doesnt exist?It doesnt exist,so its impossible to find proof for something not being there.
2.In every logical debate theists always lose out to atheists.
3.CNN or newyorktimes dont publish convincing reports about gods nonexistence,since there is no evidence for his existence.scientists and all know the nonexistence of evidence.Pastors and popes know it.Thats why they call it as faith and not as science or logic based fields like marketing or philosophy.Religion is a pseuodo science.
4.only the refusal of believers to accept the known truth stands in the way.nothing else prevents them from knowing the obvious truth.

No atheist or agnostic believes any scientific claim like evolution theory in lock stock and barrel.There are many changes in evolution theory,but all go away from bible.thats great about science.No belief is fundamental.There are no beliefs at all.quantum theory even said we dont exist and reality is an illusion.

"state the claim ,prove it and we will accept it" is science."we state the claim and you believe it without questioning" is religion.And if you ask to disprove a nonexistent thing how can anybody prove it?If you say "last night I had a dream.if you dont believe it disprove me"--who can do it?Nobody can.

If god is there,its his responsibility to prove his existence.If not then we have to take decisions based on rational skills.

[samuelbb7]

I took only two year to go from agnostic to Christian but then I was young.

If as many theists do Christians abounded the Bible those who fight against the existence of GOD would probably fight less. Since most do not care about buddaism or new age isms.

But Christianity and the Bible have a message of responsibility that is hard to ignore. Also we point to the end of the world. It seems that you want to gamble that the Bible is false you should have good reasons.

[richic]

In every logical debate theists always lose out to atheists.

If that was the case, why would there be websites devoted to debating Christianity?

only the refusal of believers to accept the known truth stands in the way.nothing else prevents them from knowing the obvious truth.

I'd like to test myself. Please name one known truth that is not accepted by believers?

No atheist or agnostic believes any scientific claim like evolution theory in lock stock and barrel.There are many changes in evolution theory,but all go away from bible.thats great about science.No belief is fundamental.There are no beliefs at all.quantum theory even said we dont exist and reality is an illusion.

But that doesn't seem fair. Atheists can keep redefining their beliefs as their previous belief is repudiated by science. I'm surprised you can be so certain about what you believe today since you are likely to believe something else in the near future.

If god is there,its his responsibility to prove his existence.If not then we have to take decisions based on rational skills.

I agree. But is it his responsibility to prove it to everyone?

[Nyril]

If that was the case, why would there be websites devoted to debating Christianity?

No offense at all to the site mods, but because any idiot with a modem and a copy of notepad can put up a website. I could -easily- put up a website devoted to debating Satanism, but that doesn't validate the belief any more then a website built to debating Buddhism validates that belief.

I'd like to test myself. Please name one known truth that is not accepted by believers?

Age of the Earth.

But that doesn't seem fair. Atheists can keep redefining their beliefs as their previous belief is repudiated by science.

Isn't it? Would you care to have the entirety of your belief system created and set in stone according to the scientific knowledge we had in 1901? Would you care to have it set back as far as 1950? In this system the beliefs can change as society and technology changes, and thus any incorrect belief can be expunged without any major challenge.

I'm surprised you can be so certain about what you believe today since you are likely to believe something else in the near future.

You're believing in that which is presently the most refined and advanced form of something. If you can accept that you'll need to change your beliefs based on new information, no problem is presented if new information is produced. Its not unfair, its simply adapting a world view to fit the known data.

I agree. But is it his responsibility to prove it to everyone?

It's not, but if it'd like people to pray to it, praise it, etc...Then it had better not be too miffed if those whom it failed entirely to prove itself don't believe in it.